U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

Record of Decision

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail 

Corridor Program

Chicago, Illinois to St. Louis, Missouri

December 2012

Prepared by:

For more information contact:

Andréa E. Martin

Federal Railroad Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop 20

Washington, DC 20590
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 1

Summary

This is the Record of Decision (ROD) of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), an 

operating administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation, with regard to the 

Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail (HSR) Corridor Program (Program) proposed by 

the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). IDOT has proposed to implement the 

Program subject to the approval of appropriate authorities. FRA has served as the 

federal Lead Agency for the environmental review under the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA). Federal Cooperating Agencies for the process have included the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (USEPA). Federal agencies with specific review, consultation, and/or permitting 

roles, include but are not limited to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 

the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC).

FRA and IDOT used a tiered environmental process for the proposed Program. Tiering 

is a phased environmental review process which is commonly used in the development 

of complex projects. Volume I of the Tier 1 EIS addresses broad issues and alternatives 

for the Chicago-St. Louis HSR Corridor. If a decision is made to build additional rail 

improvements as an outcome of the Tier 1 process, Tier 2 environmental documents will 

be prepared for component projects. The Springfield Rail Improvements Project 

evaluated in Volume II of the Program EIS is an example of a Tier 2 component project

and Tier 2 environmental review. 

This ROD identifies the Selected Alternatives for the Chicago to St. Louis HSR Corridor 

Program only. FRA is issuing a separate contemporaneous ROD for the Springfield Rail 

Improvements Project. 

In making this Tier 1 decision, FRA considered the information and analysis contained 

in the 2012 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS), and the 2012 Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS) for the Tier 1 Program (collectively the “EIS 

Documents”). FRA also considered public and agency comments received during the 

public comment periods for the above documents. 

FRA has prepared this ROD in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality’s 

(CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA, (40 CFR Part 1500) and FRA’s Procedures for 

Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999). Specifically, this ROD: 

• Provides background on the NEPA process leading to the November 2012 

publication of the Final EIS, including a summary of public involvement and 

agency coordination. 

• States and reaffirms the Program’s Purpose and Need.
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 2

• Identifies the alternatives considered by FRA in making a decision at the Tier 1 

level for the Program, including the environmentally preferable alternative. 

• Identifies the Selected Alternatives for the Program. The selected alternative for 

the Springfield Rail Improvements Project, a component of the Program, is 

identified in a separate ROD for the Project being issued contemporaneously 

with this Program ROD.

• Summarizes the environmental benefits and adverse effects of the Selected 

Alternatives. 

• Summarizes the comments received on the Final EIS. 

• Discusses the measures to avoid and minimize environmental harm and the 

future evaluations for the Tier 2 studies. 

• Presents the FRA Decision, determinations and findings on the proposed 

Program and identifies and discusses the factors that were balanced by FRA in 

making its decision. 

1.0 Program Introduction

IDOT proposes to improve high-speed passenger rail service between Chicago, Illinois 

and St. Louis, Missouri (a distance of approximately 284 miles, Exhibit 1-1). In general, 

the proposed Program improvements would include the development of double 

tracking along the existing Amtrak railroad corridor to improve high-speed passenger 

service reliability and safety, and to increase the number of trips between Chicago and 

St. Louis. The Program also includes improvements to railroad crossings, signals, and 

stations. 

The EIS considered and evaluated multiple alternative alignments along existing 

railroads between Chicago and Joliet, through Springfield, and between Alton and St. 

Louis. It is important to note that these proposed improvements were considered in 

addition to those improvements from Dwight to St. Louis associated with FRA’s 2004 

Record of Decision for the Chicago-St. Louis High-Speed Rail Project and the 2011 

Environmental Assessment (EA)/Finding of No Significant Impacts (FONSI) for the 

Union Pacific’s Track Improvement Project from Joliet to Dwight, IL; those 

improvements are currently in the process of being constructed.

FRA and IDOT used a tiered environmental process for this Program. Under this 

process, the Tier 1 EIS addresses broad, corridor-level issues and alternatives. Tier 2 

environmental documents address and evaluate individual component projects of the 

Selected Alternative carried forward from the Tier 1 study in more detail. This ROD 

evaluates the Selected Alternatives for the HSR Corridor Program at Tier 1.

Concurrently with this Tier 1 study of the Corridor Program, FRA and IDOT conducted

a Tier 2 environmental analysis for the Springfield Rail Improvements Project. The 

Springfield Rail Improvements Project Tier 2 environmental evaluation considers the 
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 3

Springfield portion of the Program corridor in more detail, evaluating alternative 

alignments through the City of Springfield in Volume II of the Program EIS. FRA is 

contemporaneously issuing a separate decision document (ROD) for the Springfield Rail 

Improvements Project as evaluated in Volume II. IDOT and FRA will carry out 

additional Tier 2 studies over time consistent with project implementation priorities and 

available funding. 
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 4
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 5

2.0 NEPA Process and Implementation Plan

2.1 NEPA Process Background

 

 

 

 

 

Milestone Date

Notice of Intent & Public Scoping Meetings February – March 2011

Draft Scoping Report July 2011

Public Meetings on Draft Scoping Report and 

Alternatives

October 2011

Notice of Availability and 

Publication/Circulation of the Draft EIS June 2012

Public Hearings: Chicago, Joliet, Bloomington, 

Springfield, and Alton August 2012

Notice of Availability and Publication of the Final 

EIS November 2012

The Tier 1 environmental process for the Program began formally in February 2011. 

Scoping Meetings were held in March 2011 and a Draft EIS was published on June 29, 

2012.

The Draft EIS presented the purpose and need for the Program, the reasonable range of 

alternatives for passenger and freight rail, the existing environmental setting, potential 

effects from Program implementation, and identified measures to reduce or eliminate 

potential adverse environmental effects.

The Draft EIS also informed decision makers, interested parties, and the public about the 

differences among various alternatives and options. The Draft EIS was circulated for 45 

days for public review and comment. Public hearings were held in Chicago, Joliet, 

Bloomington, Springfield, and Alton to provide additional opportunity for the public to 

comment on the Draft EIS.

The Final EIS was published on November 9, 2012. It addressed changes to the Tier 1

Chicago to St. Louis HSR Corridor Program as a result of public and agency 

comments on the Draft EIS, and identified the potential environmental effects of the 

Preferred Alternatives which were included in the Final EIS. The Final EIS also 

identified Tier 2 studies that would be evaluated in a greater level of detail.
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 6

2.2 Implementation Plan

It would be very challenging to try to implement a regional corridor program of this size 

and scope at one time. Rather, FRA and IDOT anticipate a series of incremental steps 

that would logically advance the Program. Therefore, IDOT has developed an 

implementation plan to help guide the identification and selection of staged 

improvements within the corridor. Ahead of any future projects, should federal funding 

be utilized, Tier 2 project level NEPA documentation for the specific project being 

implemented must also be completed to assess the environmental effects and to 

document measures to avoid or to minimize and mitigate impacts. 

The following is a list of anticipated Tier 2 Project Level NEPA studies that are identified 

in Volume I of the EIS. The list is organized from north to south. Tier 2 project limits 

and logical termini for the projects are based on the extent of major infrastructure 

improvements and station locations. Intermediate termini will be identified using train 

operation modeling where additional improvements are necessary to support service 

level increases. The sequence of construction will be based on the results of train traffic 

modeling. The scope of each Tier 2 document may change depending on future 

funding, implementation decisions, and additional design.

Chicago to Joliet – This Tier 2 Project Level NEPA document will include additional 

track, sidings, culvert and bridge improvements, signal improvements, commuter rail 

station improvements, HSR station improvements, rail flyovers, rail connections and a 

parallel structure across the Chicago River at 21st Street to improve capacity and 

reliability for identified incremental service additions. 

• Joliet to Springfield - This Tier 2 Project Level NEPA document will include 

additional track, sidings, culvert and bridge improvements and roadway grade 

separations to improve capacity and reliability for identified incremental service 

additions.

• Springfield – This Tier 2 Project Level NEPA document is included as Volume II of 

the Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis HSR Corridor Program EIS.

• Springfield Flyover - This Tier 2 Project Level NEPA document will include new 

track alignment and a railway flyover structure to separate the Union Pacific and

Norfolk Southern railroads at-grade crossover to improve capacity and reliability 

along the corridor. 

• Springfield Flyover to St. Louis Area - This Tier 2 Project Level NEPA document will 

include additional track, sidings, culvert and bridge improvements and roadway 

grade separations to improve capacity and reliability for identified incremental 

service additions.

• St. Louis Area - This Tier 2 Project Level NEPA document will include new double

track approaches to an increased capacity Mississippi River crossing to improve 

capacity and reliability for identified incremental service additions. The Tier 2 Level 
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 7

NEPA document will evaluate alternatives for an increased capacity Mississippi 

River crossing. A new double track connection to the Merchants bridge will also be 

examined for redundant access in the system for the Mississippi River crossing and 

to provide construction staging and future maintenance routes. 

• Station Improvements – Tier 2 Project Level NEPA documents will include HSR

station improvements at Joliet, Dwight, Pontiac, Normal, Lincoln, Carlinville and 

Alton. These improvements include pedestrian grade separation structures to 

provide access to both platforms and to avoid pedestrians crossing tracks at-grade, 

additional parking requirements, and additional station capacity requirements for 

identified incremental service additions.

3.0 Purpose and Need

The purpose of the proposed Chicago to St. Louis HSR Corridor Program is to enhance 

the passenger transportation network in the Chicago to St. Louis HSR Corridor by 

improving high-speed passenger rail service, resulting in a more balanced use of 

different corridor travel options by diverting trips made by automobile and air to rail. 

The existing transportation network consists of highway (automobile and bus), air, and 

passenger rail travel. Currently, nearly all trips made annually within the Chicago to St. 

Louis HSR Corridor are accomplished through automobile and air travel, with only one

percent by passenger rail. Enhancements to passenger rail service would lead to 

reduced travel times, improved service reliability, increased frequency of trips, and 

increased capacity. Increased use of passenger rail would result in an overall 

improvement in traveler safety in the corridor, as well as a reduction in air pollutant 

emissions and energy consumption. 

The need for the Chicago to St. Louis HSR Corridor Program is based on the following: 

• Because of inadequate rail capacity and deficiencies in the existing rail 

infrastructure, there is currently a modal imbalance within the corridor. Rail travel 

represents only 1.3 percent of the 51 million annual person trips within the Chicago 

to St. Louis Corridor, while automobile travel comprises 97.5 percent of these trips. 

The other two modes, air and bus, comprise only 1.1 percent and 0.2 percent, 

respectively. By 2030, it is projected that 62 million annual trips will occur in the 

Chicago to St. Louis Corridor with 96.6 percent consisting of automobiles, 1.5 

percent air, 1.7 percent rail, and 0.2 percent bus. As a result, the modal imbalance is 

projected to remain largely the same in 2030.

• Between 2007 and 2010, on-time performance for rail passenger service between 

Chicago and St. Louis ranged from 38 percent to 75 percent. For air travel, 15 to 20 

percent of flights in the corridor arrive late.
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 8

• The single track between Joliet and St. Louis cannot accommodate existing and 

projected freight and passenger train traffic resulting in travel time delays and the 

inability to increase passenger rail service.

• The new Joliet Intermodal Terminal will double the number of freight trains using 

the Chicago to St. Louis Corridor from six to 12. The number of freight trains is 

projected to increase to 22 by the year 2017, which could affect the performance and 

capacity for high-speed passenger rail. 

• From 2007 to 2010, rail passenger ridership between Chicago and St. Louis has 

increased 34 percent. (Over this same period, ridership on the state-supported 

trains between Chicago and St. Louis increased by 72 percent.)

• Automobile and bus travel between Chicago and St. Louis is limited primarily to 

I-55. Travel by this one route can often be unreliable due to traffic congestion, 

weather, roadway construction, and accidents, which can substantially increase 

travel times. 

• Automobile travel, which represents 95.5 percent of the trips within the corridor, is 

the least safe mode of transportation when compared to air, rail, and bus travel. 

Therefore, there is a need to provide safer alternative modes of transportation along 

the corridor. 

• Although air travel has the shortest travel times and is the safest mode of 

transportation, additional travel time must be considered for passage through 

airport security and travel to and from the airport. In addition, air travel is 

vulnerable to weather conditions, which can result in major delays and cancelled 

flights. Also, there is currently no direct air service from the central part of the 

corridor to St. Louis, and air travel provides little service to intermediate 

destinations.

4.0 Alternatives

4.1 Alternatives Considered and Dismissed

An initial range of multiple HSR Build Alternative alignments were developed and 

evaluated for three sections along the study corridor: Chicago to Joliet, through 

Springfield, and Alton to St. Louis. The evaluation and screening of alternatives was 

based on the objectives and criteria presented in Table 4-1 and designed to help identify 

the reasonable alternatives to be evaluated in detail in the EIS.
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 9

Table 4-1. Tier 1 Objectives and Screening Criteria

Objective Criteria and Measures

Meet Purpose and Need 

(increase passenger rail 

ridership through 

improved travel times, 

frequency and reliability 

of service, and improve 

safety.)

• Length (miles)

• Travel time (minutes)

• Connectivity to other intercity passenger rail, intermodal services to 

improve mobility to important business/leisure destinations (qualitative 

discussion)

• Safety (qualitative discussion based on ridership data)

Minimize operational and 

construction issues

• Operational issues (qualitative discussion, including host railroad’s 

readiness/ability to accommodate high-speed passenger rail

• Potential conflicts with freight and other passenger service)

• Number of at-grade crossings

• Construction issues (qualitative discussion)

Minimize capital and 

maintenance costs

• Capital cost, including right-of-way (dollars)

• Maintenance cost (dollars)

Minimize environmental 

impacts (natural, 

socioeconomic, and 

cultural resources)

• Existing and planned development [land use compatibility (qualitative 

discussion), right-of-way impacts (acres of right-of-way required)]

• Natural resources [Water resources impacts (# of crossings), floodplain 

impacts (# of crossings), wetlands (acres of wetlands in right-of-way), 

and threatened and endangered species impacts (number of species)]

• Social and economic resources [environmental justice (EJ) impacts (areas 

where EJ population >50%), community and neighborhood impacts 

(qualitative discussion), buildings directly impacted (# of buildings 

potentially displaced)

• Cultural and recreational resources [historic resources impacts (# of 

resources), recreational/potential Section 4(f)/6(f) resources impacts (# of 

adjacent resources)

4.1.1 Chicago to Joliet Alternatives

Out of the 16 alternative alignments that were developed and evaluated between 

Chicago and Joliet, 14 were eliminated from further consideration after application of 

the Tier 1 Objectives and Screening Criteria. A more detailed description of each 

alternative is provided in Volume I of the Draft EIS. The following summarizes the 

reasons for eliminating each:

• Chicago to Joliet Alternative 1 was eliminated primarily because of poor travel time, 

operational issues, and anticipated difficulties related to the host railroad’s readiness 

to accommodate high-speed passenger service on its tracks.
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 10

• Chicago to Joliet Alternative 3 was eliminated primarily because of operational 

issues, anticipated difficulties related to the host railroad’s readiness to 

accommodate high-speed passenger service on its tracks, higher potential right-ofway impacts because of a section of existing single track, potential Section 4(f) 

impacts, and generally a higher potential for environmental impacts.

• Chicago to Joliet Alternative 4A was eliminated primarily because of a lack of 

accessibility to passenger rail and anticipated difficulties related to the host 

railroad’s readiness to accommodate high-speed passenger service on its tracks.

• Chicago to Joliet Alternative 4B was eliminated primarily because of operational 

issues and anticipated difficulties related to the host railroad’s readiness to 

accommodate high-speed passenger service on its tracks.

• Chicago to Joliet Alternative 4C was eliminated primarily because of operational 

issues. (Alternative 4D is similar to 4C, but the potential connection to the NS 

railroad at 40th Street is considered a more viable option than providing a new 

connection at the Englewood flyover.)

• Chicago to Joliet Alternative 4E was eliminated primarily because of poor travel 

times and operational issues. This alternative includes the backup maneuver into 

Union Station currently used by Amtrak’s Illini-Saluki-New Orleans trains.

• Chicago to Joliet Alternatives 5A through 5D were eliminated primarily because of 

poor travel times, operational issues, and anticipated difficulties related to the host 

railroad’s readiness to accommodate high-speed passenger service on its tracks. 

Alternative 5D also has a high number of at-grade highway-rail crossings and costs 

substantially more than Alternatives 5A, 5B, and 5C.

• Chicago to Joliet Alternatives 6A through 6Dwere eliminated primarily because of 

poor travel times, connectivity to passenger rail, operational issues, and anticipated 

difficulties related to the host railroad’s readiness to accommodate high-speed 

passenger service on its tracks. Alternative 6D also has a high number of at-grade 

highway-rail crossings and costs substantially more than Alternatives 6A, 6B and 6C.

The following two remaining alternatives between Chicago and Joliet were carried 

forward for further study in the Tier 1 Draft EIS because they best met the overall 

screening criteria and purpose and need for this Program and were reasonable and 

feasible:

• Chicago to Joliet Alternative 2; and

• Chicago to Joliet Alternative 4D

4.1.2 Springfield Alternatives

Out of the five alternative alignments that were developed and evaluated through 

Springfield, the following three were eliminated from further consideration after 
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 11

application of the Tier 1 Objectives and Screening Criteria. A more detailed description 

of each alternative is provided in Volume I of the Draft EIS. The following summarizes 

the reasons for eliminating each:

• Springfield Alternative 3 was eliminated primarily because of lack of support from 

the Canadian National Railroad, the high capital costs, and the large area of right-ofway required. This alternative had the fewest environmental justice and 

neighborhood impacts, but constructing the grade separations on the Canadian 

National corridor included within Alternatives 1 and 2 was identified as a more cost 

effective way to mitigate these issues. 

• Springfield Alternative 4 was eliminated because of the operational issues associated 

with introducing crossovers in the Union Pacific line north and south of the City, the 

high capital cost, and the community impact. This alternative was among the 

highest in terms of length of rail corridor through residential neighborhoods and 

environmental justice areas. The alternative did not provide any notable advantage 

relative to the other alternatives. 

• Springfield Alternative 5 was eliminated because of the operational issues associated 

with introducing crossovers in the Union Pacific line north and south of the City and 

the increased length of Canadian National track. This alternative also would have 

the highest capital cost and the largest area of new right-of-way required. This 

alternative was among the highest in terms of length of rail corridor through 

residential neighborhoods. It did not provide any notable advantages relative to the 

other alternatives.

The following two remaining alternatives through Springfield were carried forward for 

further study in the Tier 1 Draft EIS because they were the best at meeting the overall 

screening criteria and purpose and need for this Program and were reasonable and 

feasible:

• Springfield Alternative 1; and

• Springfield Alternative 2

4.1.3 Alton to St. Louis Alternatives

Out of the six alternative alignments that were developed and evaluated between Alton 

and St. Louis, the following three were eliminated from further consideration through 

application of the Tier 1 Objectives and Screening Criteria. A description of each 

alternative is provided in the Draft EIS. The following summarizes the reasons for 

eliminating each:

• Alton to St. Louis Alternative 1 was eliminated primarily because of construction 

issues with adding another deck on the existing MacArthur Bridge;

• Alton to St. Louis Alternative 2 was eliminated primarily because of its higher 

construction costs, poor construction impact rating, more at-grade highway-rail 

crossings, and potential effects to Jefferson National Expansion Memorial Park; and
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 12

• Alton to St. Louis Alternatives 3 and 4 were eliminated primarily because they 

would require improvements along two railroad routes, resulting in much higher 

overall costs, while still potentially affecting the Jefferson National Expansion 

Memorial Park.

The following two remaining alternatives between Alton and St. Louis were carried 

forward for further study in the Tier 1 Draft EIS because they were the best at meeting 

the overall screening criteria and purpose and need for this Program and were 

reasonable and feasible:

• Alton to St. Louis Alternative 1A; and

• Alton to St. Louis Alternative 1B.

4.2 Alternatives Carried Forward for Detailed Study in 

the Tier 1 EIS

4.2.1 No-Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative includes the continuation of intercity passenger service 

between Chicago and St. Louis along with the planned passenger rail improvements 

that will allow for limited HSR service between Joliet and St. Louis. The limited HSR 

service will be provided between Joliet and St. Louis and will begin following 

completion of several upgrades to the existing tracks that were approved by FRA’s 2004 

Record of Decision (ROD) (Dwight to St. Louis improvements) and 2011 Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) (Joliet to Dwight improvements). The limited HSR service 

resulting from those improvements will include up to three daily passenger round trips 

operating at up to 110 mph between Joliet and Alton, with remaining portions of the 

corridor operating at speeds of up to 79 mph. One additional non-HSR daily passenger 

round trip will continue to operate between Chicago and St. Louis, and one non-HSR 

Texas Eagle daily passenger round trip will continue to operate between Chicago and 

San Antonio, Texas, over the Chicago to St. Louis Corridor under the No-Build 

Alternative.

The estimated one-way end-to-end travel times for the partial HSR trips under the NoBuild Alternative is expected to be between four hours and 30 minutes to four hours and 

45 minutes. This would allow the No-Build Alternative to provide travel times that are 

up to one hour and 12 minutes faster than the existing route prior to these 

improvements being completed. 

4.2.2 Build Alternatives

To facilitate the development and evaluation of complete alternatives for the Tier 1 EIS 

that extend from Chicago to St. Louis, the study corridor was divided into the following 
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 13

seven sections. The names of the alternatives that were carried forward were changed to 

correlate with the section number that they were located within. 

• Section 1: Previously referred to as Chicago to Joliet Alternative 2 (Existing Amtrak 

Route)

• Section 2: Previously referred to as Chicago to Joliet Alternative 4D (Proposed other 

existing route along the Rock Island District [RID])

• Section 3: Joliet to Springfield (Existing Amtrak Route)

• Section 4: Previously referred to as Springfield Alternative 1 (Existing Amtrak Route)

• Section 5: Previously referred to as the Springfield Alternative 2 (Proposed other 

existing along 10th Street.)

• Section 6: Springfield to Alton (Existing Amtrak Route)

• Section 7: Previously referred to as Alton to St. Louis Alternatives 1A/1B (Existing 

Amtrak Route)

Based on various combinations of these seven sections, the following four Build 

Alternatives that extend between Chicago and St. Louis were developed and evaluated 

in the Tier 1 Draft EIS (Exhibit 4-1):

• Alternative A (Sections 1, 3, 4, 6, 7)

• Alternative B (Sections 1, 3, 5, 6, 7)

• Alternative C (Sections 2, 3, 4, 6, 7)

• Alternative D (Sections 2, 3, 5, 6, 7)

All of these Build Alternatives would include eight daily HSR round trips allowing for 

110 mph intercity passenger service for the entire route between Chicago and St. Louis. 

The overall travel times for these Build Alternatives between Chicago and St. Louis 

would range from three hours and 51 minutes to four hours and 10 minutes, which 

would result in a maximum decrease in travel time of one hour and 47 minutes over 

existing conditions. One additional non-HSR Texas Eagle daily passenger round trip 

would continue to operate under the Build Alternatives.

One of the key elements of the Build Alternatives is to provide a minimum of double 

tracking for the entire Chicago to St. Louis Corridor. The Build Alternatives also include 

additional siding track and improvements to railroad crossings (including rail to rail

grade separations and pedestrian grade separations at the train stations), signals, and 

stations. The potential locations of highway to rail grade separations has also been 

identified that will be studied in greater detail during the Tier 2 studies. A new station 

along Section 2 of Alternatives C and D between Chicago and Joliet, and consideration 

of a new station between Alton and St. Louis will also be evaluated during the Tier 2 

studies. 
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 14
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 15

4.3 Preferred Alternatives Identified in the Tier 1 

Final EIS

FRA and IDOT identified Tier 1 Alternatives C (Sections 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7) and D (Sections 2, 

3, 5, 6, and 7), both of which include Section 2, as the Preferred Alternatives in the Final 

EIS. Because all of the Alternatives A, B, C, and D include Sections 3, 6, and 7, the 

impacts and performance measures within these sections are the same for all of the 

alternatives. Therefore, there were no differentiating factors that could be used in 

selecting one alternative over another based on these sections. 

As a result, the choice of the Tier 1 Preferred Alternative was limited to comparing the 

differences in impacts and performance measures between the alternatives that include 

Section 1 (i.e., Alternatives A and B) and the alternatives that include Section 2 (i.e., 

Alternatives C and D). Because the Tier 1 study did not result in a selection between 

Sections 4 and 5 that travel through Springfield, two Tier 1 Preferred Alternatives were 

advanced, including both Section 4 and Section 5, for further consideration at Tier 2.1 

The factors that led to the identification of Alternatives C and D as the Preferred 

Alternatives are summarized in sections S.3.3 and S.5of the Final EIS. 

4.4 Selected Alternatives

The Selected Alternatives are the alternatives which the FRA finds would most closely 

align with FRA’s statutory mission and responsibilities, giving consideration to economic, 

environmental, technical and other relevant factors. The Selected Alternatives are the 

same as the Preferred Alternatives as identified in the Final EIS. Thus, FRA has selected 

the Alternatives C and D, which will utilize the Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter 

(NIRC) Rock Island District (RID) Railroad between Chicago and Joliet and the existing 

Amtrak route from Joliet to St. Louis, with the exception of the portion of the corridor 

through Springfield. 

FRA did not identify the No Build Alternative as the Selected Alternative because it 

would not meet the purpose and need and it would not produce the benefits that would 

occur as a result of implementing the Corridor Program such as: full ridership potential 

would not be realized under the No Build Alternative when compared to the Build 

Alternatives due to longer travel times; the No Build Alternative would not provide 

enough increase in annual passenger rail ridership to meet the overall purpose and need 

of the Program; additional traffic and unreliability will exacerbate issues coordinating 

freight and passenger rail under the No Build Alternative, potentially affecting 

businesses and passengers relying on rail service along the route; slow moving trains in 

 1 The Tier 2 Environmental Evaluation for the Springfield Rail Improvements Project (Volume II

of the FEIS) identified the 10th Street corridor as the Preferred Alternative.
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 16

urban areas may interfere with emergency vehicle response times in the surrounding 

areas, especially where emergency response stations are located in areas where at-grade 

rail crossings are frequently blocked; and increased numbers of slow moving trains 

could result in adverse social and economic impacts to local communities due to 

automobile delays at crossings as well as delays in delivering freight and 

passengers/workers to their destinations on time under the No Build Alternative.

Build Alternatives C and D, both of which include Section 2, have been selected based 

on the following comparison of Section 1 (i.e., Canadian National Railroad) and Section 

2, RID route. 

Operational:

Operational performance of the Selected Alternatives to achieve acceptable on-time 

performance standards was of high importance when selecting an alternative.

Currently, Amtrak is pursuing relief from the Surface Transportation Board for failure of 

the Canadian National Railroad (Section 1) to properly dispatch Amtrak trains to avoid 

delays. The RID Railroad (Section 2) is dispatched by Metra. While Section 2 has 

considerably more traffic than Section 1, the Metra trains are on a fixed timetable with a 

95 percent on-time performance record. Section 1 has unpredictable freight traffic,

including shipper servicing which makes on-time performance more difficult to achieve. 

Incremental infrastructure improvements to Section 2 can be made to preserve or 

enhance on-time performance in a shorter time frame at a lower cost. Section 1 would 

require construction of four costly and time consuming flyovers to preserve or enhance 

on-time performance. In comparison, Section 2 requires only one flyover at the Joliet, 

Elgin, & Eastern (EJ&E) Railroad.

Cost:

Section 2 costs $200 to $500 million less than Section 1 primarily due to the need for the 

four flyovers.

Hine’s Emerald Dragonfly:

Section 1 would impact 3.7 acres of Critical Habitat for the federally and state 

endangered Hine’s emerald dragonfly. Because the Critical Habitat is on both sides of 

the existing railroad alignment and immediately adjacent to the right-of-way, these 

impacts would be difficult to avoid and mitigate. In addition, the USFWS has expressed 

concern regarding the Program’s impacts to the Critical Habitat and the potential 

increase in train-dragonfly collisions. Section 2, however, would not result in any 

impacts to the Hine’s emerald dragonfly.

Public Policy:

If Amtrak service is no longer on Section 1, two Chicago Region Environmental and 

Transportation Efficiency (CREATE) Project flyovers on that route may not be needed. 
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 17

The ability to reprioritize limited CREATE resources for more urgent projects would be 

of significant public benefit and would reduce the total cost of the CREATE Program. 

Additional infrastructure investment along Section 2 would not only benefit the HSR

Program but also would place that investment in a publicly owned corridor.

Section 5 through Springfield:

FRA and IDOT have advanced both Alternatives C and D at the Tier 1 level of review 

and have not made a selection of a route through Springfield at the Tier 1 level. Since 

the agencies decided to carry out a Tier 2 level of analysis for the Springfield section at 

the same time and as a component of the Tier 1 EIS, it is more appropriate for the 

selection of the identified alternative for Springfield to be made in the separate Tier 2 

ROD being issued contemporaneously with this Tier 1 ROD. The justification for the 

selection of the selected alternative through Springfield is addressed in that ROD. 

Summary:

Alternatives C and D, both of which include Section 2, have been identified as the 

Selected Alternatives based on the following reasons:

• Avoids Critical Habitat of the federally and state endangered Hine’s emerald 

dragonfly.

• More passenger friendly dispatching.

• Fewer unpredictable train events to affect on-time performance.

• On-time performance can be preserved or enhanced with smaller incremental 

improvements in a shorter time frame at lower cost.

• Total cost is less.

• Allows potential CREATE Program reprioritization or program cost savings.

• Invests public funds in a publically owned transportation corridor.

Additional Considerations: 

While Alternatives C and D are the Selected Alternatives for the reasons described in 

this section 4.4, they involve significant and costly improvements in Section 2 in moving 

service off of the existing Amtrak route. As described in section 2.2 of this ROD, IDOT’s 

implementation plan calls for the Program to be implemented in incremental steps due 

to the Program size and scope. Therefore, resources will need to be prioritized and costs 

and benefits weighed in deciding which improvements will be advanced first.

Accordingly, in advancing the overall Program, FRA’s selection of Alternatives C and D 

would not preclude limited interim investments on the existing Amtrak route 

(particularly safety-related improvements) that might be appropriate prior to the 

implementation of the major improvements contemplated in Sections 2. 

Tier 2 environmental analyses for such investments might need to be made, as 

appropriate. Additionally, during the Tier 2 studies for Section 2, alternative 
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 18

connections that would provide access to Union Station could be considered if that 

connection would be deemed better than the connection at 40th Street.

It should also be noted for the Selected Alternatives that while the MacArthur Bridge is 

identified as the preferred route for the Chicago to St. Louis HSR Corridor Program, the 

Merchants Bridge also plays an important role in serving as an alternate route during 

maintenance or unexpected disruptions, and also as a key part of the St. Louis area rail 

network providing potential benefits to both freight and passenger traffic. The bridge 

connections for both the MacArthur and Merchants Bridges should be further evaluated 

during the Tier 2 studies. 

4.5 Environmentally Preferable Alternative 

CEQ regulations implementing NEPA require that a ROD specify the alternative or 

alternatives considered to be environmentally preferable. “Environmentally 

preferable” is defined as “the alternative that will promote the national 

environmental policy as expressed in the NEPA, Section 101.” Ordinarily this means 

the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical 

environment; it also means the alternative that best protects, preserves, and 

enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources. The impacts assessed for this Tier 1 

EIS were based on a Tier 1 level of analysis, which does not involve detailed design and 

field surveys. The subsequent Tier 2 studies for this Program will further evaluate 

impacts and measures to avoid and minimize the impacts identified, and are at a greater 

level of detail. 

Selected Alternatives C and D are the environmentally preferable alternatives based on a 

broad Tier 1 review and analysis which outlined that there will be: no critical habitat of 

the federally and state endangered Hine’s emerald dragonfly impacted; no farms will

be bisected; the Program is not anticipated to result in significant adverse impacts to 

public health related to air pollutants and air toxics or contributions to Green House Gas 

emissions; no new land use changes will be generated in and around the Corridor, 

reducing traffic on the regions roadways and highway infrastructure, and the majority 

of the impacts would be within the existing right-of-way and in previously disturbed 

areas. The adverse environmental effects associated with the Selected Alternatives were 

less substantial than the consequences associated with the No Build Alternative in terms 

of air quality, energy, and traffic, and thus identified the Selected Alternatives as 

environmentally preferable.
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 19

5.0 Summary of Potential Effects and 

Measures to Avoid and Minimize Harm

FRA and IDOT conducted a comprehensive review and analysis of the potential impacts 

of the Preferred Alternatives at the Tier 1 level in the Final EIS, building upon the impact 

analysis of the Draft EIS. The effects of the Selected Alternatives (which are the same as 

the Preferred Alternative from the Final EIS), which is the approved “Program” in this 

ROD, are summarized below. The impacts assessed for the Tier 1 EIS were based on a 

Tier 1 level of analysis, which does not involve detailed design and field surveys. The 

Tier 2 studies will be at a greater level of detail than the Tier 1 EIS. The Tier 2 studies

will further evaluate impacts and measures to avoid and minimize those impacts, as 

well as indirect and cumulative impacts. 

Potential land acquisition and displacement of residences and businesses will be fully 

assessed in the Tier 2 studies. Right-of-way purchases will be conducted in accordance 

with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 

(Uniform Act) (42 USC 4601 et seq.), as amended, and the provisions of the State of 

Illinois Relocation Assistance Plan. A more detailed analysis will be conducted during 

the Tier 2 studies to determine the impacts to low-income and minority (Environmental 

Justice) populations and to ensure compliance with Executive Order 12898 and DOT 

Order 5610.2(a). 

Further evaluation of historic architectural resources will be needed during the Tier 2 

studies in order to identify potentially eligible historic properties and to make 

determinations of effect in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. One archaeological site was identified in the Tier 1 Final EIS. The Tier 

2 studies will also conduct additional investigations to identify potential archaeological 

resources and to determine if construction would have an adverse effect on these

resources. .

Detailed field studies will be conducted during the Tier 2 studies to further identify and 

evaluate impacts to natural resources, water resources, floodplains, and wetlands. 

These studies will also identify necessary measures to avoid and minimize impacts to 

these resources. Coordination with the appropriate resource agencies, including 

Endangered Species Act, Section 7 consultation, will occur during the Tier 2 process. 

During the design phase, there will be opportunities to avoid and/or minimize 

floodplain impacts by designing bridges to span 100-year flood zones or portions of 

them. Design features such as steeper side slopes and/or retention walls may also be 

implemented to reduce the disturbance footprint. Coordination with the USACE, the 

USFWS, and the IDNR will be required to determine specific wetland mitigation 

requirements to adequately compensate for wetland losses. 
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 20

Detailed noise and vibration studies will be conducted during the Tier 2 studies. The 

mitigation measures identified in the Tier 1 Final EIS would be considered and applied 

as appropriate in the Tier 2 studies. 

Coordination with the resource and regulatory agencies and the local communities will 

continue as the Program moves into the Tier 2 studies. Measures will be identified in 

the Tier 2 studies to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts as a result of implementing 

the Selected Alternatives. 

Table 5-1 summarizes the Tier 1 level of impacts and costs for the Selected Alternatives 

C and D. Potential measures to mitigate the impacts associated with the Selected 

Alternatives are presented in Table 5-2. These potential measures will be refined further 

and finalized in the Tier 2 documents following more detailed impacts analysis.

5.1 Land Use/Socioeconomic Impacts

Table 5-1 shows the number of displacements and the acreage of right-of-way that 

would be needed for the Selected Alternatives C and D. As indicated by the table, 

Alternative C would result in fewer displacements and require less right-of-way than 

Alternative D. Potential impacts by each the Selected Alternative to low-income and 

minority populations (i.e., environmental justice populations) were also evaluated. Both 

alternatives would traverse ten census tracts with more than 50% of the population 

below poverty level. With regard to minority populations, Alternatives C and D would 

traverse 89 census blocks respectively with more than 50% of the population being 

minority.

Right-of-way purchases conducted pursuant to a federally funded program would

comply with the Uniform Act, and U.S. DOT regulations, 49 CFR Part 24. IDOT will 

implement the provisions of the State of Illinois Relocation Assistance Plan in 

accordance with the Uniform Act.
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 21

Table 5-1. Summary of Impacts and Costs

Resources

Selected 

Alternative C

Selected Alternative 

D

Buildings Displaced 262 317

Community Facilities 0 0

Environmental Justice

>50% Minority Census Blocks 83 89

Environmental Justice

>50% Poverty CensusTracts 10 10

New Right-of-Way 700-716 ac 736-737 ac

Prime Farmland Soils 1,903 ac 1,900 ac

Historic Sites 6 5

Archaeological Sites 0 0

Forest 254.3 ac 248.1 ac

Prairie Remnants 233.1 ac 233.1 ac

Protected Natural Areas 17.74 ac 17.74 ac

Critical Habitat (Hine’s Emerald Dragonfly) 0 0

Noise Sensitive Receptors 339 806

Vibration Sensitive Receptors 249 283

Surface Water 191 191

Special Status Streams:

Biologically Sensitive Streams #/ft 5/805 5/805

Illinois Natural Areas Inventory Streams #/ft 6/1,004 6/1,004

Nationwide Rivers Inventory Streams #/ft 3/554 3/554

Navigable Waterways #/ft 7/883 7/883

Wellhead Protection Areas 2 2

Floodplains #/acres 44/85.5 44/85.2

Wetlands #/acres 71/55.0 71/54.9

Special Waste Sites 260 276

Section 4(f) Properties 14 14

Costs (millions) $4,912-$5,232 $5,114-$5,193
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 22

Table 5-2. Potential Mitigation Measures

Impact Mitigation

Land Use Long Term - IDOT will implement the provisions of the State of Illinois 

Relocation Assistance Plan in accordance with the Uniform Act as 

mitigation measures where ROW acquisitions and land use changes occur.

Cultural Mitigation measures will be determined based on the more detailed 

investigations from Tier 2 studies and in compliance with Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Natural Resources

Short Term - Avoidance, minimization, and best management practices 

implementation will reduce adverse impacts. 

Long Term – Coordination will continue through the Tier 2 level with the 

Illinois Nature Preserves Commission regarding the avoidance, 

minimization, and mitigation of any impacts to prairies. Coordination will 

continue through the Tier 2 level with the USFWS and INDR regarding the 

avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of any impacts to state and 

federal threatened and endangered species. Upland forests will be 

replaced on a 1:1 ratio in accordance with IDOT policy "D&E-18 

Preservation and Replacement of Trees".

Construction Air Quality:

Short Term - State and local regulations regarding dust control and other 

air quality emission reduction controls will be followed during 

construction.

Noise and Vibration:

Short term and Long term noise mitigation measures will be identified 

during Tier 2 studies.

Water Quality/Erosion Control:

Short Term - BMPs will be utilized to protect water quality. Runoff from 

construction sites must be diverted from directly entering streams during 

and after construction. Any impervious areas resulting in a small 

reduction in recharge area will be mitigated using stormwater 

retention/detention basins.

Floodplains Mitigation measures will be determined based on the more detailed 

impact determinations from Tier 2 studies.

Wetlands Long Term - A conceptual wetland mitigation plan will be developed to 

compensate for unavoidable impacts. Coordination with the USACE, the 

USFWS, and the IDNR will be required to determine specific mitigation 

requirements to adequately compensate for wetland losses pending final 

design to quantify actual wetland impacts.
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 23

Table 5-2. Potential Mitigation Measures (continued)

Noise and Vibration Long Term

• Wheel treatments; 

• Rail treatments;

• Vehicle treatments;

• Building insulation;

• Noise barriers;

• Maintenance-

− Rail grinding on a regular basis, especially on rails that tend to 

develop corrugations;

− Wheel truing to re-contour the wheel and remove wheel flats. 

This can result in a dramatic vibration reduction. However, 

significant improvements can be gained from simply smoothing 

the running surface. Install wheel-flat detector systems to 

identify vehicles that are most in need of wheel truing;

− Implement vehicle reconditioning programs, particularly with 

components such as suspension systems, brakes, wheels, and 

slip-slide detectors;

• Relocation of Special Trackwork;

• Ballast Mats;

• Resiliently Supported Ties;

• High Resilience Fasteners; and

• Floating Slab Trackbed.

Visual and Aesthetic Quality • Long Term - Views from trains into private spaces would be a positive 

visual impact and views of trains and new rail lines would be 

considered a minor adverse visual impact. IDOT will determine 

potential ways to help reduce minor impacts, such as planting

vegetation screens or providing aesthetically pleasing features as part 

of the HSR design. 

Special Waste Mitigation measures will be determined based on the more detailed 

impact determinations from Tier 2 studies.

Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources Mitigation measures will be determined based on the more detailed 

impact determinations from Tier 2 studies. 

5.2 Energy

Table 5-3 presents the annual energy consumption by mode and alternative. The results 

in Table 5-3 show that the total energy consumption from intercity passenger travel 

under the No-Build Alternative would be higher than the Selected Alternative. 

Although the Selected Alternatives would result in an increase in energy consumption 

compared to the No-Build Alternative with regard to rail transportation, all of the other 

three modes would experience a decrease, thereby, resulting in an overall net decrease 

in energy consumption. This overall net decrease could be attributed to a shift in 

ridership from the other three less energy efficient modes to rail.
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 24

Table 5-3. Annual Energy Consumption (billions of BTUs)

Alternative Rail Automobile Bus Air Total

Existing (2010) 199 22,754 69 411 23,433

No-Build (2030) 354 27,558 93 692 28,697

Selected 

Alternatives C and 

D

572 27,143 83 628 28,426

5.3 Agriculture 

Table 5-1 presents the impacts to prime farmland soils for each Selected Alternative. As 

indicated in the table, there is minimal variation in total acres of impacts between the 

Selected Alternatives. Because the Selected Alternatives would follow the existing 

railroad tracks, no farms would be bisected by any of the alternatives. The increase in 

train traffic along the corridor could result in increased delays at railroad crossings, as 

farm vehicles would be required to stop more frequently for trains crossing roadways. 

5.4 Cultural Resources

In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, each 

alternative was evaluated for potential impacts to historic architectural and 

archaeological resources. A file search was conducted to identify any properties within 

the study corridor that are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP). Based on this information, it was determined that Selected 

Alternatives C and D would impact approximately six and five NRHP listed/eligible 

architectural sites, respectively. More detailed field surveys for potentially eligible 

properties that are not currently listed on the NRHP and the determination of effects 

will be conducted during Tier 2 studies.

With regard to known archaeological resources, potential impacts were considered 

where proposed improvements (construction activity) would physically impact the 

property on which the resource lies or would be immediately adjacent to the 

construction activity such that temporary impacts could result. Because the resources 

lay belowground, noise, vibration, and visual impacts were not considered.

One site, 11MP4, located in Macoupin County is adjacent to an area where construction 

activities would occur. However, based on the Tier 1 level of analysis, this site is 

currently not shown as being directly impacted by the Selected Alternatives. Further 

evaluation will be required during Tier 2 studies to determine if the Selected 
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 25

Alternatives would have an adverse effect on this site. In addition, Tier 2 studies will 

include a survey of potential archaeological resources in all areas to be disturbed.

5.5 Natural Resources

5.5.1 Forests, Prairie Remnants, and Illinois Natural Areas

The Selected Alternatives were evaluated for potential impacts to natural resources such 

as forest, prairie remnants, and protected natural areas. Table 5-1 shows the impacts to 

these resources for each of the Selected Alternatives. With regard to impacts to prairie 

remnants, and protected natural areas, the Selected Alternatives would have the same 

impacts. With regard to forest impacts, however, Selected Alternative C would impact 

approximately six more acres than Selected Alternative D. There are six natural areas 

located within the construction -limits of the Selected Alternatives: Hickory Creek 

Barrens Nature Preserve (0.3 acre), Funks Grove Nature Preserve (0.9 acre), Thaddeus 

Stubblefield Grove Nature Preserve (7 acres), Hitts Siding Prairie Nature Preserve (0.6 

acre), Funks Grove Land and Water Reserve (7.9 acres), and Denby Prairie Nature 

Preserve (1.14 acres).

5.5.2 Threatened and Endangered Species

The Selected Alternatives would not impact USFWS designated Critical Habitat for the 

federally and state endangered Hine’s emerald dragonfly.

Based on the IDNR EcoCat database and coordination with USFWS and IDNR, there are 

no Critical Habitats of other federally listed species located within the study corridor 

that could be impacted by any of the Program’s alternatives. Based on Natural Heritage

Data Base records of occurrences, the federally and state endangered leafy prairie clover 

and the federally threatened and state endangered Mead's milkweed occur within the 

existing and proposed ROW. However, this Tier 1 level of documentation did not 

include detailed fieldwork to identify potential habitats and/or populations of 

threatened and endangered species. Therefore, conclusions about impacts to listed 

species or their habitat cannot be made at this time. Further coordination with USFWS

and IDNR will continue during the Tier 2 stage.

Species listed as threatened or endangered by the state, which have recorded 

occurrences within the existing or proposed right-of-way based on the Natural Heritage 

Data Base, are included in Chapter 5, Table 5.6-3 and Exhibits 5.6-1 through 5.6-3 of the 

Tier 1 Final EIS. Most of the records for state listed species occur in Sections 3 and 6. 

Since these sections are included in all the Selected Alternatives, there is little difference 

in the species records for each alternative. All species listed in Table 5.6-3 are present in 

the right-of-way of the Selected Alternatives, with the exception of the leafy prairie 

clover, which is only known for Section 1.
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 26

5.5.3 Air Quality

The proposed improvement would impact the counties of Cook, Will, and Grundy in the 

northeastern Illinois nonattainment area, and the counties of Jersey, Madison, St. Clair, 

and St. Louis in the St. Louis nonattainment area. While the proposed Program would 

increase diesel locomotive emissions, these increases would be offset by decreases in 

regional mobile source auto vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The Program-generated net 

increases in predicted annual pollutant emissions, from high-speed rail passenger 

service, in nonattainment areas would all be below general conformity de minimis 

threshold values. Pursuant to the General Conformity Rule, EPA considers projectgenerated emissions below these de minimis values to be minimal. Such projects do not 

require formal conformity determinations. With regard to greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions, the Selected Alternatives would reduce CO2 emissions by 22,200 tons/year 

versus the No-Build Alternative. As a result, the Program is not anticipated to result in 

significant adverse impacts to public health related to air pollutants and air toxics or 

contributions to GHG emissions.

5.5.4 Noise and Vibration

As indicated in Table 5-1, the Selected Alternative C would impact fewer noise and 

vibration sensitive receptors than Selected Alternative D.

5.5.5 Water Quality

5.5.5.1 Surface Water

The Selected Alternatives would result in the same number surface water crossings 

(191).

5.5.5.2 Special Status Streams

Both of the Selected Alternative would result in impacts to Biologically Sensitive 

Streams (five crossings/805 feet), Illinois Natural Areas Inventory Streams (six 

crossings/1,004 feet), and Nationwide Rivers Inventory Streams (three crossings/554 

feet), and Navigable Waterways (seven crossings/883 feet). Further coordination with 

USFWS and IDNR will continue during the Tier 2 stage.

5.5.5.3 Well Crossings

Both of the Selected Alternatives would cross the same number of Wellhead Protection 

Areas (2) and Non-Community Water Supply Well Setbacks (5). Further coordination 

with IDNR will continue during the Tier 2 stage.
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 27

5.5.5.4 Floodplains

Table 5-1 shows the impacts from Selected Alternatives C and D would have on 

floodplains (44 crossing and 85.2 acres). Of the 44 crossings, 29 would be perpendicular 

crossings for both Selected Alternatives

5.5.5.5 Wetlands

For this Tier 1 level of analysis, National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping was used 

to determine potential wetland impacts. Field investigations were not conducted to 

verify this information. Therefore, wetland delineations will need to be conducted 

during the Tier 2 environmental documentation. The wetland communities that would 

be impacted by the Selected Alternatives are palustrine (i.e., freshwater) emergent 

(PEM), palustrine forested/scrub-shrub (PFO/PSS), palustrine unconsolidated bottom 

(PUB) (i.e., ponds), and riverine (i.e., rivers). Table 5-1 shows the Selected Alternatives 

would impact 65 wetlands totaling approximately 46 acres. Out of all the wetland 

communities impacted, PFO/PSS wetland communities would have the greatest 

impacts.

5.6 Utilities

The Selected Alternatives would require the relocation of utilities in the corridor which 

has been included in their cost estimates.

5.7 Visual and Aesthetic Quality Impacts

Table 5-4 shows the relative visual impacts to each of the landscape units along the 

Selected Alternatives. Most of the landscape units would have minor/negligible impacts 

from the Selected Alternatives except for the Chicago, Joliet, and Springfield areas, 

which would have moderate impacts.

5.8 Special Waste

A database search was conducted to identify special waste sites that may be impacted by 

the Program. Table 5-1 shows that Selected Alternative C (260) would impact 16 fewer 

sites than Selected Alternative D (276).

5.9 Section 4(f)/6(f) and Parklands

This section identifies the potential for the Selected Alternatives to impact resources 

protected by Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 and Section 

6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965 such as public parks, 

recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic properties. For this Tier 1 

analysis, potential impacts were considered when any portion of a Section 4(f) resource 

fell within or would physically abut the existing or proposed right-of-way limits of the 
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 28

Selected Alternatives. These impacts do not represent an official determination of 

Section 4(f) use. Although a determination of effect has not been made for historic 

properties, the seven NRHP historic sites located along the corridor were included as 

potential Section 4(f) properties for this analysis. Based on this evaluation, it was 

determined that both Selected Alternatives would impact approximately 19 Section 4(f) 

properties.

Table 5-4. Visual Resource Impact Summary

Landscape 

Unit

No-Build 

Alternative

Selected 

Alternative C

Selected 

Alternative D

Chicago Area   

Joliet Area   

Will County   

Grundy 

County

  

Livingston 

County

  

McLean 

County

  

BloomingtonNormal Area

  

Logan County   

Sangamon 

County

  

Springfield 

Area

  

Macoupin 

County

  

Madison 

County

  

St. Louis Area   

5.10 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts

It is anticipated that the Selected Alternatives would result in negligible indirect impacts 

for the following reasons:
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 29

• The Selected Alternatives would utilize existing rail corridors and train stations and, 

therefore, would not result in the development of new access or train stations in 

areas that previously did not have any passenger rail service. 

• It is anticipated that the increased ridership would have a minimal effect on 

inducing development around the existing train stations, which are already located 

in developed/urbanized areas. Any induced growth that may occur would be 

limited to the built-up areas in the immediate vicinity of the train stations and would 

likely include small restaurants and/or retail shops that would be attracted by the 

increase in transit passengers and potential customers. Any potential growth that 

may occur would be controlled by the local, state, and federal agencies that would be 

responsible for approving such development and permitting the impacts to any 

regulated resources that may be impacted.

With regard to natural, cultural, agricultural, and socioeconomic resources, it is 

anticipated that the Selected Alternatives would result in negligible cumulative impacts 

for the following reasons:

• Because the Chicago-St. Louis HSR Corridor Program would involve primarily the 

addition of a second track that would parallel the existing track, the majority of the 

impacts would be within the existing right-of-way and in previously disturbed 

areas.

• Any new impacts outside of the existing track’s footprint and right-of-way would be 

relatively narrow, linear, and distributed over a long distance (i.e., 284 miles). As a 

result, the impacts to any given resource (e.g., natural, cultural, agricultural, or 

socioeconomic) within any given area (e.g., ecosystem, watershed, community) is 

expected to be relatively small and would have a negligible cumulative effect when 

added to any other project impacts in those areas.

• The vast majority of the study corridor has been, currently is, and will continue to be 

farmland. The remaining study corridor is mostly comprised of highly developed 

urban areas that would not contribute to cumulative impacts. The potential for this 

Program to generate land use changes in and around the study corridor from 

farmland/undeveloped land to suburban or urban land is minimal due to the fact 

that the rail corridor already exists and the Program would help to reduce growth 

pressures on non-urban land by focusing on already built out areas and reducing 

traffic on the regions roadways and highway infrastructure.

The most notable known projects that would result in cumulative impacts along the 

study corridor when added to this Program are the high-speed rail improvements from 

Dwight to St. Louis associated with the 2004 ROD and the high-speed rail improvements 

from Joliet to Dwight associated with the 2011 EA/FONSI. Although minimal, the 

cumulative negative impacts associated with these projects would primarily be limited 

to prime farmland, vegetation/habitat, wetlands, and streams that are located along the 
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 30

existing railroad corridor. With regard to air quality, these projects are expected to 

provide an overall cumulative benefit. The high-speed rail facility is expected to 

provide service to motorists who would otherwise travel between Chicago and St. Louis 

by automobile. This shift in travel mode is expected to reduce overall vehicle emissions. 

These projects would also result in a cumulative benefit of removing automobiles from 

congested roadways and improving safety by shifting automobile travelers to a safer 

mode of transportation. 

5.11 Travel Benefits

5.11.1 Travel Time, Frequency, Reliability

Rail passenger travel time between Chicago and St. Louis would decrease and the Selected

Alternatives could therefore result in an additional 35- to 39-minute travel time savings 

compared to the No-Build Alternative.

With the Selected Alternatives, three additional passenger round trips would be 

operated daily. 

The Selected Alternatives would include the addition of a second track through most of 

the corridor (Dwight to St. Louis), rail-to-rail grade separations, and added capacity 

north of Joliet, as well as associated signal improvements. These features would address 

the reliability-related issues due to train interference that are not addressed by the NoBuild Alternative. 

5.11.2 Safety

Overall passenger safety in the corridor would increase in that the annual passenger 

miles traveled by rail in the corridor is expected to rise to 328 million passenger miles 

(Year 2030) from the existing 114 million passenger miles. This is 125 million passenger 

miles greater than with the No-Build Alternative. To the extent that this increase 

represents a diversion from automobile travel, the safety risk to travelers would 

decrease in that rail travel is safer than automobile travel. Annual passenger miles by 

automobile are projected to decrease by 118 million passenger miles compared to the 

No-Build Alternative.

With additional trains operating in the corridor, the possibility of train collisions is 

increased. However, the installation of a positive train control signal system would 

mitigate this risk.

5.11.3 Additional Travel Benefits

Improvements to passenger rail service improve its competitiveness with other modes of 

travel. When compared to the other transportation modes, the Selected Alternatives 

would provide more access to intermediate markets along the corridor except for 
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 31

automobile travel, which currently provides access along the entire corridor via the 

interstate interchanges. Between Chicago and St. Louis, the Selected Alternatives would 

provide improved access to nine intermediate markets via the train stations while air 

and bus travel currently provides access to only two markets (Bloomington/Normal and 

Springfield). With regard to trip service, the Selected Alternatives would provide for 

safe use of cell phones and internet access for diverted automobile drivers. As for air 

travel, although cell phone and internet access is available at airports, there are more 

restrictions/limitations regarding their use during flight. With regard to cost and 

service, Selected Alternatives would provide higher quality service than bus travel and 

rail service under the No-Build Alternative at a lower cost than air travel.

5.12 Transportation Impacts

5.12.1 Freight Rail Service Impacts

Implementation of the Selected Alternatives may require some freight train scheduling 

modifications to prevent conflicts with passenger rail service proposed for the Selected

Alternatives. The increased frequency of passenger trains will further restrict rail time 

available for freight movements. Since high-speed operations will occur primarily 

during the daytime, coordination with the host railroads would be required to 

determine if the routing of freight trains could occur outside of the peak intercity 

passenger periods. Ultimately, the freight carrier would have to agree to such a shift. 

5.12.2 Commuter Rail Service Impacts

Commuter rail service in the Chicago area currently operates on Section 2 (Metra RID) of 

Selected Alternatives C and D. No other commuter rail service operates in the corridor. 

Metra has no plans for changing or expanding the existing service along Metra’s RID. 

There is also no intercity passenger service currently operated via the Metra RID. The 

assumed capacity improvements for the high speed service will be developed further in 

the Tier 2 process to provide appropriate additional capacity, but not for the additional 

commuter service. Further improvements (i.e. crossovers, portions of new track) can be 

developed and analyzed to support the future additional commuter rail service.

Implementation of the Selected Alternatives would not result in changes in the number 

of commuter trains operating daily. Impacts from the Selected Alternatives could result 

in additional intercity passenger trains operating, potentially affecting commuter rail 

service. 

5.12.3 Impacts to Rail Service during Construction

In general, construction activities for the Selected Alternatives would affect rail traffic by 

reducing operating train speeds through the construction zones, adding to rail travel 

time and, in turn, cost. This would occur when adding new siding tracks, double-tracks, 

and connection tracks. The other impact would be schedule adjustments for existing 
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 32

operations to create windows of opportunity for temporary shutdown of rail operations 

on selected track sections, such as when the new turnouts are being placed for the 

passing sections and new sidings, or when there is a potential safety risk, such as during 

the construction of a flyover. During construction, there may be track outages that 

would interrupt intercity passenger rail service. As necessary, bus service would be 

provided along the corridor to replace intercity passenger rail service lost during 

construction.

5.12.4 Highway-Rail Grade Crossings Impacts

Based on the 2004 ROD and 2011 EA, at-grade highway-rail crossings through most of 

Sections 3 through 7 (Joliet to East St. Louis) will be upgraded to provide four-quadrant 

gates and roadway configuration/approach improvements based on crossing 

diagnostics. 

Tier 2 studies under the Selected Alternatives will need to be conducted to evaluate 

crossing improvements such as additional tracks, crossing surfaces, and gates to 

accommodate the upgraded service. The Selected Alternatives would increase vehicular 

delay at highway-rail grade crossings for the following reasons:

• Additional intercity passenger rail service: Gate down time would increase because 

the number of passenger trains operating in the corridor would increase from 10 per 

day to 18 per day.

• Increase in advance warning time: All crossings will be equipped with constant 

warning time. Currently, crossing gates are activated approximately 20 to 30 

seconds prior to a train reaching the grade crossing. For high-speed passenger 

trains, crossing gates would be activated sooner, possibly up to 90 seconds before a 

train reaches the crossing. This increase in time would cause additional vehicular 

delay for motorists using the highway-rail grade crossing. As part of 

implementation of the 2004 ROD improvements, coordination with the Illinois 

Commerce Commission is underway to determine the length of time required for the 

gates to be activated before a train reaches a crossing.

The combination of additional trains and longer gate down times would increase the 

amount of time that a crossing is blocked by approximately 20 minutes per day.

Every highway-rail crossing in the study corridor was evaluated for its suitability for 

grade separation. Potential grade separation locations were identified based on setting 

(urban or rural) and their predicted exposure factor, a function of train and vehicular 

volumes. At the conclusion of this evaluation, 101 crossings were identified in the study 

corridor for potential grade separation, which would be evaluated further during Tier 2 

analysis.
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 33

5.12.5 Impacts to Vehicular Crossings during Construction

Vehicular traffic would be temporarily affected at locations where grade crossings 

would be separated, modified, or improved. While the exact construction zones are not 

known at this time, temporary lane closures or roadway closures would be required to 

construct some of the proposed improvements. The grade crossing improvements 

would, at a minimum, require traffic to slow down as it passes through the construction 

zone while new warning devices and other improvements are installed. In some cases, 

temporary diversion of traffic to adjacent crossings could be required. Construction of 

grade separations would be staged to minimize street closures. 

Where impacts to vehicular traffic exists, emergency services, schools, businesses, and 

other activities requiring vehicular access would be affected by potential delays or 

detours. However, construction related impacts on vehicular traffic would be 

temporary. Traffic maintenance planning would be coordinated with schools and 

emergency service providers.

5.12.6 Station Access and Parking Impacts

The Selected Alternatives could involve proposed parking expansions and station 

improvements to accommodate the increase in ridership. It is anticipated, however, that 

there would be no access or traffic congestion problems associated with the Selected

Alternatives.

Potential new stations will be evaluated in suburban Chicago (between Chicago and 

Joliet) and St. Louis (between St. Louis and Alton). If the Program moves forward, the 

potential location for these stations would be evaluated in Tier 2 studies. However, it is 

assumed that the location of new stations would be easily accessible from the highway 

and arterial system. 

6.0 Permits

There will be permit requirements for construction of the Selected Alternatives

associated with the crossing and filling of water resources and wetlands. Section 404 

permits will be needed from the USACE for wetlands where filling occurs. As part of 

any Section 404 permit submittal, the USACE will be provided with all coordination 

documentation for any alternative selected that would affect the Hine's emerald 

dragonfly and its Critical Habitat or any other threatened and endangered species yet to 

be identified. In addition, a Section 401 water quality certification will have to be 

obtained from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency.

Permits from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Office of Water Resources, 

will be required for construction activity in and around streams and floodplains.
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 34

It is anticipated that the Selected Alternatives for this Program will result in the 

disturbance of one or more acres of total land area. Therefore, it will be subject to the 

requirement of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for 

stormwater discharges from the construction sites. The NPDES permit program 

requires a Notice of Intent, the development of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

(SWPPP), and the submission of a Notice of Termination when final stabilization of the 

construction site has been achieved. The SWPPP would identify potential sources of 

pollution which may reasonably be expected to affect the quality of stormwater 

discharges from the construction site and would describe and ensure the 

implementation of practices which would be used to reduce the pollutants in discharges 

associated with construction site activities and assure compliance with the terms of the 

permit. Permit coverage for the Program will be obtained either under the Illinois 

Environmental Protection Agency General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from 

Construction Site Activities (NPDES Permit No.ILR10) or under an individual NPDES 

permit.

If previously unknown occurrences of endangered species are identified during 

Program implementation, all activity in the immediate area would cease. Coordination 

with the US FWS would be initiated as required by Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, and appropriate state or federal permits would be sought.

7.0 Summary of Comments on the Tier 1 Final 

EIS

During the 30 day waiting period following the publication of the Final EIS, FRA 

received letters from both the Illinois and US EPA outlining future coordination and 

permitting requirements. The letters are attached in Appendix A:

• IL EPA letter was received on November 16, 2012; the agency has no objections to 

the Project, however, a stormwater permit will be required if one or more acres is 

disturbed during future construction activities, and hazardous materials if 

encountered, will need to be properly disposed of or recycled. 

• US EPA letter was received on December 10, 2012; the agency appreciates 

acknowledgement of their comments on the Draft EIS and commends the Final EIS 

for improvements to the following sections; Purpose and Need; Alternatives; 

Environmental Impacts; Threatened and Endangered Species; Migratory Birds; 

Environmental Justice; Noise Receptors; Water Crossings; and Cumulative Impacts; 

and recommends that Cumulative Impacts to be analyzed in Tier 2 studies. The US 

EPA also commends the Preferred Alternative selections for both the Corridor and 

Springfield, and the agency looks forward to future coordination with the FRA and 

IDOT. 
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 35

8.0 Corrections to the Tier 1 Final EIS

There are no changes to the Final EIS.

9.0 Decision

IDOT proposes to implement high-speed passenger rail service between Chicago and St. 

Louis. The purpose of the Program is to offer a safe, reliable alternative to automobile 

and air travel between Chicago and St. Louis using proven rail technology. Currently, 

the overwhelming majority of travelers use automobiles on I-55, contributing to 

substantial safety and congestion concerns on that roadway and in adjacent 

communities. Projected travel demand on I-55 is expected to continue to increase 

commensurate with projected population growth in Illinois. Implementation of the 

Program will help address these needs. In addition, the Passenger Rail Investment and 

Improvement Act of 2008 established high-speed rail corridor development as an 

important component of the Nation’s transportation policy. 

Implementation of the Chicago to St. Louis HSR Corridor Program is thus consistent 

with the Department of Transportation and FRA’s vision of the important role highspeed intercity passenger rail can play in certain travel markets (see Vision for HighSpeed Rail in America, April 

2009 http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/rrdev/hsrstrategicplan.pdf).

The Selected Alternatives C and D identified in this ROD will utilize the Rock Island 

District route between Chicago and Joliet and the existing Amtrak route from Joliet to St. 

Louis, with the exception of the portion of the corridor through Springfield. Section 4.4

of this ROD articulates in detail the considerations and factors balanced by FRA in 

arriving at this decision. These considerations extended to an evaluation of several 

action alternatives and a No Build Alternative. 

FRA, in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality NEPA implementing 

regulations and FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, finds that 

the requirements of NEPA have been satisfied for the Tier 1 Chicago to St. Louis HSR 

Corridor Program. 

The environmental record for the Tier 1 Chicago to St. Louis HSR Corridor Program 

includes the Draft EIS (June 2012), the Final EIS (November 2012), and this ROD, which 

includes comments from the circulation of the Final EIS. These documents represent the 

detailed analysis and findings required by NEPA on:

• The environmental impacts of the proposed Program.

• Alternatives to the proposed Program.

• Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources on the environment which 

may be involved in the proposed Program should it be implemented.
Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program 36

On the basis of the evaluation of social, economic, and environmental impacts contained 

in the Tier 1 Draft EIS and Tier 1 Final EIS, as well as the written and oral comments 

offered by the public and by other agencies, FRA determines that:

• Adequate opportunity was afforded for the presentation of views by all parties with 

a significant economic, social, or environmental interest, and fair consideration was 

given to the preservation and enhancement of the environment and to the interest 

of the communities in which the proposed Program is located; and

• All reasonable steps were taken to minimize potential adverse environmental 

effects of the proposed Program, and where potential adverse environmental effects 

remain; they have been fully reported in Tier 1 Draft EIS and Tier 1 Final EIS and 

will be further evaluated during Tier 2 studies.

The extensive opportunities provided for public and other stakeholder involvement in 

planning and decision-making are described in the Tier 1 Final EIS and summarized in 

this ROD. The reasonable steps to minimize potential adverse environmental effects are 

described in the Tier 1 Final EIS and are detailed as Measures to Avoid and Minimize 

harm in this ROD. As outlined in Section 5.0 of this ROD, the findings for Section 106, 

Section 4(f)/6(f), Section 7 endangered species, wetlands, floodplains, floodways, and 

environmental justice will be determined during the Tier 2 studies when more detailed 

analysis will be conducted.

Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor Program APPENDIX A

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

APPENDIX A

Record of Decision for

Tier 1: Chicago to St. Louis High-Speed Rail Corridor 

Program

December 2012